One Leftist Judge Slaps Down Seven Million Voters in California

RUSH: You people know this as well as I do. The American people are boiling. The American people are furious. My e-mails are unbelievable. This federal judge yesterday, this decision, Prop 8, California, has just put people over the edge, and all of these decisions are coming one after another from all corners of the federal government. It's as if we have absolutely no say in what is going on all around us. Decisions are being made for us, in lieu of us and imposed on us. We sit here, we mind our own business; we're doing everything we can to try to muddle our way through the minefield that this country has become. We're trying to live our lives, follow the rules. We have these institutions, the federal judiciary now run by leftist nutjobs picking us apart. And, folks, we have been predicting this is exactly what would become of the judiciary. This is insurance against election losses for the Democrats and for the left, pollute the judiciary, put a bunch of liberal activists, not judges, on the court, and impose your will by fiat, by way of law. This is tyranny. It was easy to predict. It's tough as hell to stop it. The court's now just for the most part extensions of the Democratic Party.

I don't know what's happened to Ted Olson. He's one of the lawyers in this case out in California along with David Boies. I have no clue. Ted Olson used to be one of us. He used to be anti-judicial activism. I don't know. As with abortion, liberals are lying about the Constitution. They dress up their opinions as if they are law and legitimate, then they impose them. The issue is who gets to make these decisions. The Constitution lays out the process, but the Constitution more and more is becoming irrelevant to the people who are running this country.

Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. Great to have you here. Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@EIBnet.com.

You had one judge. You had seven million California voters. This is not the first time California voters have been told that what they did was unconstitutional. Prop 187, healthcare, education, welfare benefits for illegal immigrant children, ditto, unconstitutional. One judge, who happens to be gay. In February of 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story: It's no big deal, doesn't really matter. "Judge Being Gay a Nonissue During Prop. 8 Trial -- The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say that he's never taken pains to disguise -- or advertise -- his orientation."

I don't care whether he's taken pains to disguise or advertise his orientation. What we have here is a results-oriented liberal judicial judge -- not even a judge, this is an activist -- he has taken 136 or whatever it is, 138 pages to write of his own outlook rather than a fair and faithful reading of the Constitution's text. This is a personal political preference, a personal policy preference of this judge -- he's not the first -- that's now been codified into law. This will be appealed. He even built in his automatic stay in this knowing it was going to be appealed. It will go to the Ninth Circus, don't know how soon it will get there. It will go to the US Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy will be the target. And this judge in his opinion doesn't name Kennedy but makes it plain he knows where this is going. Kennedy is the swing vote on a 5-4 court. However Kennedy goes on this case is how this case is going to end up, given that there are no further changes in the court between now and the time this case gets there. You watch all of the attention that will be given and focused on Justice Anthony Kennedy.

We have a federal judge here, one of 1,000 federal judges, the only federal judge so far who has abused his power in the way he handled discovery in this case from day one trying to allow video in his courtroom because he wanted to be considered a great civil libertarian jurist. He's seeking a reputation. He wanted cameras in the courtroom. He wanted to be seen as a great civil rights crusader. The video was struck down. His decision is long. It is long because it's preposterous. He embraces every witness the plaintiffs used as experts. He rejects every contrary argument, and he even gets to the point of practically saying that marriage is an act of discrimination by homophobic heterosexuals and that marriage has been for generations an act of homophobia perpetrated by heterosexuals. The reason gays have not been allowed to marry is because of active homophobia on the part of heterosexuals, and this has been for the most part codified now into law, and there's no way you can arrive at that kind of conclusion looking at the Constitution. That is a personal policy preference, pure and simple. We've been warning about it. It's easy to predict this kind of tyranny.

So now we're going to have a patchwork of different marriage laws across the country. Where's Eric Holder on this? It's a 138-page ruling. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing of sex. It was never intended to deal with sex of any kind. There is no historical evidence anywhere to endorse this ruling, but the judge does it and the Ninth Circus will likely be no better because they're populated with similar kinds of judges. The Supreme Court with Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, this is a roll of the dice, folks, but with Kennedy's ruling, his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which basically threw out Texas' right to decide what's sodomy and what isn't is no better. So these guys are not even judges. They're pretending to be judges, but they are political activists wearing black robes. This is a decision for the states unless and until congress passes a constitutional amendment and that amendment is ratified by the states. The federal courts have absolutely no role in reversing the vote of the people of California who properly amended their own Constitution. The federal courts have absolutely no role in reversing the vote of the people of California.

It has basically come down to this: These totalitarians, statists, Marxists, socialists, whatever you want to call them in whatever place they inhabit are going to advance their agenda regardless of the law, regardless of the traditions and institutions that have defined this country since its inception. For them the result is all that matters, and the more chaos the better. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this ruling is not really even about gay marriage. I mean, that's the end result of it, but what this ruling is really all about and the reason it's being celebrated is that once again a minority -- and this is a political minority-- is able to savor the fact that they've stuck it to the majority again. That's really what this is about. That's the end result here.

It doesn't matter if it's gay marriage. There's going to be another issue like this that totally violates the traditions, institutions and the Constitution and the law, and they are going to have the same kind of ruling, same kind of test case, and they're going to celebrate it because once again they are destroying the country. They are destroying the fabric and that's why they're celebrating. It's hard to understand, hard to get your arms around, people born here who hate it; people born in this country who despise it. That's propelling all of this. They've either been raised, educated, or they were just DNA born with this hatred. However they have it, they've got it, and their aim is to tear it all apart. And the more you get upset, the more depressed you get, the angrier you get, the happier they are. This is what they want to create. Obama's doing a great job of it.

Look at the news today. Reporting on Obamaville is like covering a jailbreak, a massive jailbreak. Obama may be about to forgive billions in mortgage principal. Have you heard this? This hit just this morning. "Main Street may be about to get its own gigantic bailout. Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. An estimated 15 million U.S. mortgages -- one in five -- are underwater with negative equity of some $800 billion." The August surprise. The rumor is that Obama will order Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not going through Congress, not going through the legislation, not going through the representatives of the people, just order Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to in effect forgive these mortgages. For what reason, you ask? Why? The elections in November. All of these people whose homes have lost value, one in every five mortgages underwater. Another bailout. Look at it that way. It's just another bailout. It's just a rumor right now, but if it's true, Obama's trying to buy off all of you whose homes are underwater for your votes for the Democrat Party in November, pure and simple, with another bailout.

On top of that we have Elena Kagan no different than this judge in California, a political operative for the left on the verge of being confirmed to the US Supreme Court. Jobless claims are up again today. The media's dumbfounded. A leftist political operative disguised as a judge overturns the will of seven million California voters in Proposition 8. And now the media in California is citing a poll that says that most Californians support gay marriage and they are ignoring the outcome of the balloting on Proposition 8. So here we have a poll being reported as carrying more weight than an actual election.

General Motors is making political donations with your money. General Motors has now resumed making political donations to Democrat nonprofits and Democrat entities, except they're owned by the government. So the government and the unions are using your taxpayer dollars to fund Democrat political operations. We have the Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics scandals. We have a mosque on the verge of being built at Ground Zero. I wonder if the Islamic community will go along with gay marriage? Will we have gay marriages taking place at that mosque?

Arizona is handcuffed from protecting its own citizens. The Obama regime is suing the State of Arizona, when all Arizona's trying to do is enforce federal law. Food stamp use has hit an all-time high, a record. The media is ecstatic and happy. And this just scratches the surface of what's going on in this country. This is just a partial list.

For those of you in California, it may be time just to forget the elections, skip 'em. Once you go out and you get the signatures on your ballot initiatives and your propositions, just send it directly to the partisan political operatives on the federal bench throughout the State of California disguised as judges and let them decide whether or not your ballot initiative is even constitutional because your votes don't count. Your votes don't matter in initiative after initiative after initiative. You ought to see my e-mail. It is overflowing. People are boiling all over this country. And wherever you look, elections in Michigan and Kansas, wherever you look, Democrats are going down in huge flames. Sharron Angle is right. Sharron Angle in Nevada is saying that the Democrats want us to treat government as God. She's exactly right.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I would go so far as to say that gay political activists may not know it but they are being used by the overall leadership of the American left. The left uses issues such as gay marriage as battering rams to wreck the US Constitution and that's what's going on here. All these Democrats that are out there -- and even the Obama administration saying, "Well, they don't support gay marriage, but they were against Proposition 8." Right. Well, the Democrats who are cheering this ruling, overturning California's Prop 8, are not really cheering gay marriage. They want gays to believe that they are. They are cheering and they are giving standing ovations to this judge for weakening the US Constitution, for ripping it to shreds, because that is the objective of the American left. This is not surmise. This is not political opinion. This is fact.

All you need to do is listen to the leader of this regime, Barack Obama, from the year 2000 on complaining about the Bill of Rights. "It's too negative. It doesn't let the government do anything. All it does is tell the government what it can't do." Precisely. The Constitution was written to deemphasize the power of federal governments. Our Founders had fled tyranny. They certainly didn't set up tyranny when they founded this country with the Constitution. But the left -- the Marxists, socialists, progressives, whatever you want to call them -- want tyranny and they want to be in charge of it. The Constitution stands in their way. So this judge is being cheered ostensibly for recognizing homophobia in the heterosexual community for thousands of years.

Thousands of years of discriminatory homophobia has led to gay people not being allowed to marry, and this judge (finally someone enlightened) has come along and seen it. Wrong. They are cheering the fact that this judge has rammed the Constitution with a battering ram. These are the same Democrats who have either remained silent or openly advocated the building of a mosque where Sharia law is the word of Allah at Ground Zero. Now, Sharia law not only bans gay marriage, it bans gays. Permanently. So why in the world would leftists who are cheering a judge who has just said that Prop 8, voted on by seven million Californians is unconstitutional because of decades -- generations, thousands of years -- of homophobia and discrimination practiced by heterosexuals...?

Why in the world are they cheering and supporting a mosque being built in the shadows of Ground Zero, 9/11, which will be a testament to Sharia law which does not even allow gays, much less gay marriage? The reason is that gay marriage is not the thing. Destroying the United States is the thing. Destroying the United States Constitution is the thing. So today it's gay marriage as the means, the latest weapon to accomplish this. Tomorrow it will be something else. The destruction of the economy is another way to do it. Obama's in charge of this -- and, of course, building a mosque at Ground Zero. What greater way to say to the United States of America, "Stick it, buddy"?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We hear a lot of talk from the Obama administration about "civil rights." Everything is turned into a civil rights issue -- equal rights, equal protection rights, whatever. Endless things are done against us in the name of civil rights. But what is a more fundamental right -- a fundamental civil right in our system of government in a supposed republic -- than the right to have our voice heard, to have our vote respected? You want to talk about civil rights? It doesn't matter what the people of California vote. If the left doesn't like it, they will use the bastardization of power in this country to reverse it. What about our vote being respected? Without that right, we're no longer a republic. The left only loves elections when they win them.

They seek to abolish sovereignty on the border. Today it's gay rights, yesterday it was illegal aliens, tomorrow it's also going to be illegal aliens. It's not about illegal immigrants. It's not about opening the borders so these poor people can "have a better life." That's what they tell you they're for, in favor of. It's not what it's about. It is about finding more Democrat voters, but more than that it is about another attack on the US Constitution, another attack on US sovereignty, and it is your Democrat Party that is leading this. Because your Democrat Party has been hijacked firmly now by the extreme left worldwide. If elections don't matter, we're no longer a republic. If one judge, an activist judge using his personal policy preferences, can overturn an election involving seven million votes, then elections don't matter.

The whole social compact -- quote/unquote, that is -- the Constitution is ripped to shreds, which is the purpose. Look at this. They seek to abolish sovereignty on the border. They seek to abolish various industries and the notion of private property rights. We have an economy being destroyed before our very eyes. We have a regime bankrupting this country before our very eyes. Look at this situation in the Gulf. They can't find the oil. It was never a disaster. There was never any reason for a moratorium on drilling. We've shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico which, as we know, the left has always been in favor of, shutting it down. And now the rigs are starting to move to other parts of the world. A bunch of people are out of work.

Unemployment claims are "surprisingly" up. There is no recovery, and Michelle Obama is doing her Marie Antoinette impersonation with 40 of her friends in 60 rooms at $2500 a night over in Spain for four nights. People in this country can't find work. Those that do have work are not confident they are going to have work next week. Small businesses are not confident they are going to be solvent enough to grow. They look up every day and there is another attack on them, the people who succeed and achieve in this country, and they are told that what they have is ill gotten. It's going to be taken from them and given to someone else in the name of civil rights, in the name of equal protection, in the name of fairness.

While all this is going on, the president of the United States is having dinner with Oprah and showing up on The View. No wonder Sarah Palin says the guy doesn't have any "cojones." Look at who he's hanging around with: Oprah and that cluckfest on The View, and then his wife on his birthday jets over with 40 of her friends to a five-star hotel in Spain -- on your dime, on Air Force Two, where rooms in this place are 2500 bucks a night. That's fine and dandy if you're paying for it with your own money. Michelle Obama may as well be saying what Marie Antoinette said: "Let 'em eat cake!" Even though Marie Antoinette was misunderstood, we'll stick with the misunderstanding here to make the point.

They seek to abolish sovereignty on the border. They seek to abolish various industries, the notion of private property rights. They seek to impose their perverted views, their depraved views on family and marriage. Nobody's denying anybody the right to get married. Marriage? There's a definition of it, for it. It means something. Marriage is a union of a man and woman. It's always been that. If you want to get married and you're a man, marry a woman. Nobody's stopping you. This is about tearing apart an institution. This is about destroying an institution. It's not about equal rights and fair rights and civil rights. That's the game. That's the illusion that all this is about. They seek to make us poorer through environmental laws and rules. They don't give a damn about elections (unless, of course, they win them).

When they win elections, they are said to have a mandate to do whatever they wish. If they lose elections, they turn to the courts like this judge and the bureaucracy to move their agenda and to hell with elections. That's where we are. It is not about gay marriage. Marriage is not being denied anybody. Everyone has the equal right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is. That's the equal protection. It's not marriage if the two people of the same sex get married. Call it what you want, make up a new name for it, but it isn't marriage. Two plus two is four, not five if you want it to be five -- and this is not to be discriminatory. This is just to stand up for language. Words mean things. A microphone's a microphone. It's not...a mouth. Marriage is what it is. Discrimination is what it is.

The Fourteenth Amendment was never, ever meant to address sex, gender, orientation. The Fourteenth Amendment's where they are going to talk about equal protection. There's no historical evidence anywhere to endorse this judge's decision, but he does it. The Ninth Circuit will be no better. The Heritage Foundation in its Morning Bell blog today: "The Obama Elite Versus the American People -- This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama's health care law." And by the way, did you hear what Gibbs said about that? Here is White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking for Obama, the president of the United States. "White House press secretary Robert Gibbs flatly dismissed Missouri's vote Tuesday rejecting a key part of the healthcare law.

"Gibbs said Missouri's vote approving a ballot initiative to exempt residents from the new law requiring individuals to buy health insurance was 'of no legal significance.'" (Raspberry) you! (Raspberry) you! is the attitude from Washington. "Asked what it means that voters in Missouri would vote against the federal mandate, Gibbs said: 'Nothing.'" Now, it is said here in The Hill newspaper that "Gibbs is correct that the Missouri vote doesn't trump federal law, but it has given a boost to those calling on Congress to repeal the healthcare law." That's not the story here. Gibbs "flatly dismissed Missouri's vote" is the story. They are governing against the will of the American people.

More and more they are governing against the will of the American people throughout this country. When the American people speak constitutionally via the rules and regulations set up for them to speak, the regime dismisses it. When the people of California vote, seven million people, to define marriage -- not to change anything, just to uphold the standard since the beginning of time definition of marriage -- one judge (who happens to be gay, although they tell us that's irrelevant) says, "Nuh-uh." The judge dismisses the will of seven million California voters, as does the increasingly disappointing brain-dead governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Obama elite versus the American people. "Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms." He essentially said that marriage exists because heterosexuals have been homophobic and practicing discrimination since the beginning of time. "Here are just some of the 'facts' Judge Walker found: * Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. * The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships."

This is what he "found," and the reason he found this is because the only testimony he took was from advocates, and this is what they said. None of this is legal. None of this is law. This is all political. This is all social. And so the social demands, the political beliefs of the opponents of Prop 8 have now been codified into law by one of their own, a judge. "The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian." That's not been codified as law. It's no different than the judge down in Arizona deciding on the basis of hypotheticals to overturn the Arizona law on illegal immigration. Judge Walker found "The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child's adjustment outcomes."

I don't know what that is but that's not law. There's no precedent. There is no law for any of this that this judge found or cited. Some of the other "facts" that the judge found: "Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted. How did Judge Walker arrive at these 'facts'? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents' 'experts' said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was 'unreliable' and 'provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.'" So we don't even have case law. We don't have law, period. We have leftist activism that a judge sided with in the form of testimony.

That has now been codified into law. "According to Judge Walker's reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker's Constitution. From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: 'Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.'" This judge wanted liberal activism disguised as testimony broadcast nationally so as to buttress and back up what everybody knew would be his decision.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Constitution and its destruction is the objective of the American left and today's Democrat Party as being led by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, and his spokesman Robert Gibbs. The vote in Missouri doesn't mean anything. People in the State of Missouri, nah, it's irrelevant, doesn't mean a thing. We're not even interested. We don't care. We don't care what the people of this country say. We don't care what the people of this country vote. We don't care. "We" are all who matter. Since the Constitution is the target here, I thought it would be interesting, I always love to go back to the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were one of the foundational building blocks to the writing of the Constitution. Federalist Number 45 was written by James Madison and it's relevant here, the overturning of California's Prop 8. And you couple that with Pete Stark's comment that the federal government can do most anything illustrates just how far we have drifted from our roots as a nation since our founding.

The states' rights were promised in exchange for votes to ratify the Constitution, and it was a tough sell because the fear of many of the Founders, many wise men, was a new centralized government similar to the monarchy they fled would be created. They did not want to create what they fled. What they fled is in the process of being created. Here's James Madison, the alleged danger from the powers of the union to the state governments considered for the independent journal, Federalist Paper Number 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects," This is federal power, "as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." James Madison, one of the Founders, Federalist 45. You can see what today's Democrat Party has become: To hell with individual liberty and freedom and to hell with states' rights.

People of California vote numerous times to overturn federal actions. They're deemed unconstitutional by one judge. The elected representatives of the people of Arizona pass a law to protect the border since the federal government will not. The federal government sues. I guarantee you our Founding Fathers are in heaven and if they are watching, they are angry as anybody has ever been. They did a miraculous great thing and they are witnessing it being torn apart by the modern Democrat Party led by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Judge Vaughn Walker in California did not just slap down the will of seven million voters. He put those seven million voters on trial, and he found those seven million voters guilty. Judge Walker has now said that marriage is nothing more than homophobia, codified in law.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Judge Vaughn Walker, California, did not just slap down the will of seven million voters. Those seven million voters were put on trial, a kangaroo court where everything was stacked against them. He wanted to make it a show trial. He wanted cameras. US Supreme Court said no way. Seven million California voters, your vote just wasn't overturned, you were on trial and now marriage has been codified as homophobia. According to this judge, the only reason marriage is between a man and a woman is because heterosexuals have been discriminating against gays because they're homophobic. So marriage, if this is upheld, marriage is simply codified homophobia. And the purpose of this, of course, is to just rip to shreds the traditions and institutions that have defined the United States of America. This "trial," Judge Walker, Judge Vaughn Walker, this "trial" -- and I put that in quotes -- was truly bizarre. But most importantly the sponsors of the initiative ended up being on trial. The voters of Prop 8 ended up being on trial.

I mean, same-sex marriage laws have been the subject of previous trials: Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, elsewhere in California. In none of these previous same-sex marriage trials were the thoughts of those who were either for or against the initiatives in question put on trial, the thoughts, the imagined thoughts, the perceived thoughts. In other words, those of you who voted for Prop 8 in California are guilty of hate crimes. You were thinking discrimination. That's what this judge has said! Truly unprecedented. Never before have people been put on trial for their thoughts in same-sex marriage cases, but it's now happened. It's happened in other trials. That's how we get hate crimes. If you really hate somebody and murder them, it's worse than if they just murder them. That's also been codified into law. But Judge Walker put the proponents of Proposition 8, especially the people from Project Marriage, on trial. He even tried to subpoena their e-mails. He, the judge, tried to subpoena their e-mails and other writings. None of that should have anything to do with the constitutionality of the legislation or the proposition that was passed.

Here is his conclusion at the end of his ruling: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples." That is a legal ruling from a federal judge. So it's unconstitutional because he thinks it's not rational. "The evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples." How does he arrive at that? How in the world does he come to this conclusion? How do you get to the conclusion that the only reason marriage exists is because of homophobia practiced by heterosexuals and the result of their homophobia was to create marriage? And so now marriage in California is codified homophobia. You've heard the word bastardization tossed around about a number of things. This is a true bastardization of the law, bastardization of the Constitution, and it's a clear example of the personal policy preferences of a judge becoming law, pure and simple.